you're thinking if it would all work whilst still using GNU's userland?_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

Considering that they're actually free unlike GPL'd software I say "fuck yea!"_________________The popularity of Bernie Sanders tells me there is a large group of people in this country who want to do what is right, what is moral, and what is virtuous -- and yet have no idea how.

I'd watch it with interest. The fact that Apple is involved makes me wary. That most Linux apps would use GCC is also of concern. I might not really want to compile a program to work with GCC & Clang._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

As long as there is an option for individual users to go back to GCC should they want to use the legacy GCC toolchain, I would be okay with this. I dislike the GNU project's stance on Gentoo Linux, so I think moving away from their software would be a step in the right direction.

As long as there is an option for individual users to go back to GCC should they want to use the legacy GCC toolchain, I would be okay with this. I dislike the GNU project's stance on Gentoo Linux, so I think moving away from their software would be a step in the right direction.

GNU are retarded and shooting themselves in the feet so much it is unlikely they are going to be able to walk soon.

Once people move away from GCC and Glibc what is left? TURD?_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

Okay, I just put two and two together here. LLVM is also the software fallback for Gallium3D. So if a statetracker (like OpenGL 4.0) calls for some hardware function not exposed by the card's driver, LLVM will generate the necessary x86 (or whatever) code to perform it.

EDIT: Gallium3D with LLVM is already light years ahead of Mesa's software rasterizer. So basically Apple is part of why we even have this new graphics architecture. I think I'm going to be sick.

you're thinking if it would all work whilst still using GNU's userland?

Because GNU's userland is meant to conform to POSIX, it should not be dependent on any particular compiler. If there are any GCC specific issues, they can be filed as bugs. If the GNU people refuse to patch their bugs, Gentoo's package maintainers could likely provide patches in the portage tree.

There is also the option of adopting an alternative userland. I think there are use flags for switching from glibc to uClibc, so there should be some support for a non-GNU userland in Gentoo already. Moving both Gentoo's C compiler and C standard library to non-GNU equivalents would go a long way toward adopting an alternative userland.

you're thinking if it would all work whilst still using GNU's userland?

Because GNU's userland is meant to conform to POSIX, it should not be dependent on any particular compiler. If there are any GCC specific issues, they can be filed as bugs. If the GNU people refuse to patch their bugs, Gentoo's package maintainers could likely provide patches in the portage tree.

There is also the option of adopting an alternative userland. I think there are use flags for switching from glibc to uClibc, so there should be some support for a non-GNU userland in Gentoo already. Moving both Gentoo's C compiler and C standard library to non-GNU equivalents would go a long way toward adopting an alternative userland.

yeah, that's what I thought. I've often wondered what everything would be like with ICC and uClibc or tinycc.

In fact I think it would be a good experiment to do a stage 1 with both userlands and see what the differences are like to do with size, speed and stability_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

well i suppose smaller binaries, faster system and not relying on that bearded gnome_________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

As long as there is an option for individual users to go back to GCC should they want to use the legacy GCC toolchain, I would be okay with this. I dislike the GNU project's stance on Gentoo Linux, so I think moving away from their software would be a step in the right direction.

GNU are retarded and shooting themselves in the feet so much it is unlikely they are going to be able to walk soon.

Once people move away from GCC and Glibc what is left? TURD?

I think that leaves:

Automake

Bison

Binutils

Coreutils

Findutils

Gawk

GDBM

Grep

Groff

Inetutils

Libtool

M4

Sed

Tar

Texinfo

I am not sure if there are GNU-compatible replacements available for all of them, although I am not sure if all of them are strictly necessary for a non-GNU userland.

wswartzendruber wrote:

And what's the real benefit with the move?

Switching from GCC to LLVM would provide all of the benefits that come with LLVM:

you're thinking if it would all work whilst still using GNU's userland?

Because GNU's userland is meant to conform to POSIX, it should not be dependent on any particular compiler. If there are any GCC specific issues, they can be filed as bugs. If the GNU people refuse to patch their bugs, Gentoo's package maintainers could likely provide patches in the portage tree.

There is also the option of adopting an alternative userland. I think there are use flags for switching from glibc to uClibc, so there should be some support for a non-GNU userland in Gentoo already. Moving both Gentoo's C compiler and C standard library to non-GNU equivalents would go a long way toward adopting an alternative userland.

yeah, that's what I thought. I've often wondered what everything would be like with ICC and uClibc or tinycc.

In fact I think it would be a good experiment to do a stage 1 with both userlands and see what the differences are like to do with size, speed and stability

I would love it if Gentoo supported hardware vendor compilers as a drop-in replacements for GCC, but I doubt that will happen. The unofficial wiki alludes to issues that are caused by compiling certain system packages with ICC:

That might just be a warning, but I have always interpreted it as meaning that ICC is unable to compile those packages. Perhaps someone could test this.

Anyway, it might be easier to do Linux From Scratch with the alternate components and then install portage on top of that than it would be to start from a stage 1. Documentation for doing (and the exact definition of) a stage 1 is not readily available because the Gentoo Foundation does not support stage 1 installations anymore. After portage is installed, I imagine that the system profile could be modified so portage would not try to install the GNU components.

Last edited by Shining Arcanine on Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:14 am; edited 1 time in total

well i suppose smaller binaries, faster system and not relying on that bearded gnome

It's already faster than GCC? After all these years?

nothing is slower than gcc._________________when you're sitting back, in your rose pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day
I'll be in my basement room, with a needle and a spoon
And another girl to take my pain away...

well i suppose smaller binaries, faster system and not relying on that bearded gnome

It's already faster than GCC? After all these years?

EDIT: Heh, we should switch and rebrand ourselves as Gentoo BSD/Linux just to confuse everyone.

I am confused as to whether you are talking about the system compiler or the userland as a whole.

By the way, shouldn't this be in the Gentoo Chat, rather than in Off the Wall?

The whole userland. And yeah, Gentoo Chat would make more sense, I think.

If the userland is switched to a BSD userland, which BSD variant would be the userland donor? Are there any differences between the userlands of Dragonfly BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD?

Is there an entirely free (as in BSD/LGPL licensed) GNU-compatible userland that Gentoo could use an an alternative to the GNU userland?

Edit: Now I understand what you mean by Gentoo BSD/Linux. The term "GNU/Linux" is finally starting to make sense in the context of having to call Gentoo with a GNU userland Gentoo GNU/Linux and the Gentoo with a BSD userland Gentoo BSD/Linux. Logically extending this syntax, if Gentoo BSD/Linux is booted with say a FreeBSD kernel, it would then need to be called Gentoo FreeBSD. Gentoo with a NetBSD kernel would then need to be called Gentoo NetBSD. Gentoo with an OpenBSD kernel would then need to be called Gentoo OpenBSD. Lastly, Gentoo with a DragonFly BSD kernel would need to be called Gentoo DragonFly BSD. The Gentoo projects currently with those names would need to be renamed to Gentoo GNU/FreeBSD, Gentoo GNU/NetBSD, Gentoo GNU/OpenBSD and Gentoo GNU/DragonFly BSD respectively.

A while back I had made a half-hearted attempt at coming up with what HURD really stands for. It was Hopefully it-Ull be Release some Day._________________My political stance/bias
slycordinator != slycoordinator